Medina v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. City of New York

63 A.D.3d 632, 882 N.Y.S.2d 95

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 30, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 632 (Medina v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Medina v. City of New York, 63 A.D.3d 632, 882 N.Y.S.2d 95 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 17, 2008, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The commencement of this action was untimely (General Municipal Law § 50-i). Plaintiffs objection that defendant’s answer should be considered a nullity was effectively waived when he retained that responsive pleading for two months before moving to dismiss (see e.g. Rosenshein v Ernstoff, 176 AD2d 686 [1991]). He also failed to offer any evidence that defendant had induced him to delay bringing the action by misleading him into believing settlement negotiations were imminent. There are no grounds for estopping defendant from asserting the statute of limitations (see e.g. Dowdell v Greene County, 14 AD3d 750 [2005]; Dailey v Mazel Stores, 309 AD2d 661, 663-664 [2003]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 17, 2008, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The commencement of this action was untimely (General Municipal Law § 50-i). Plaintiffs objection that defendant’s answer should be considered a nullity was effectively waived when he retained that responsive pleading for two months before moving to dismiss (see e.g. Rosenshein v Ernstoff, 176 AD2d 686 [1991]). He also failed to offer any evidence that defendant had induced him to delay bringing the action by misleading him into believing settlement negotiations were imminent. There are no grounds for estopping defendant from asserting the statute of limitations (see e.g. Dowdell v Greene County, 14 AD3d 750 [2005]; Dailey v Mazel Stores, 309 AD2d 661, 663-664 [2003]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 632, 882 N.Y.S.2d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack